Cultivating a psychological health and safety culture for interprofessional primary care teams through a co-created evidence-informed toolkit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The psychological health and safety of healthcare workers workplaces and learning environments impacts the quality of healthcare services. To facilitate the psychological health and safety of interprofessional primary care teams, we curated a bilingual toolkit of 122 psychological health and safety resources comprising a multi-level categorization addressing individual, team, organization, and system-level interventions. The resources in the toolkit are organized by 7 themes, based on a clustering of the 15 psychosocial factors. Adopting the framework built on the 7 themes, this article describes the toolkit development process and how it addresses the key factors for psychologically healthy and safe workplaces to foster interprofessional collaboration. Implementation of the interventions in the toolkit is an important next step for which health system leadership is critical. Additionally, we identify several gaps and call on researchers, educators, and health leaders to address them in their future work.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.071 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".